The Network for Good is "a nonprofit collaboration to help nonprofit organizations increase capacity, reach new audiences, and build Internet strategies."
They have a service setup that allows Nonprofits with a Web site to collect donations by simply linking to their nonprofit's donation page from Network for Good. See: http://www.networkforgood.org/npo/fundraising/donations/index.html
Charities receive 100% of the donations.
Nonprofits pay no fees or costs.
Donors receive records of contributions for tax purposes.
If no one has any objections, I will setup an account for us (unless Jimmy will do it, since he is head of the foundation [I think?]). So Jimmy, just tell me if you want me to take care of this.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a. Mbecker
a.k.a. MB
Erik Moeller wrote:
>...
>I think the Britannica brand will live on, but in
>terms of competition we should be more worried
>about Encarta (and vice versa).
Hm. Unix at one time owned the server OS business then an upstart call
MicroSoft offered an adequate product and undercut their prices. So then
Microsoft dominated the server OS market. Then an upstart OS named GNU/Linux
came on the scene that offered an adequate product at zero price. Now
GNU/Linux is doing the same thing to Microsoft that Microsoft did to Unix (as
far as market share is concerned).
The Unix/Microsoft thing now looks like it is playing out in the
Britannica/Microsoft Encarta arena. Will Wikipedia be the Linux of the
encyclopedia world? Will we also be labled "enemy number one" by the people
in Redmond within the next several years? Golly, this GNU thing is a virus.
-- Daniel Mayer
I just realized something, a site I posted on [[Wikipedia:Press
coverage]] might also be breaking the GFDL. They list some text from
one of our pages. See http://cgi.canoe.ca/Columnists/diotte_jul7.html,
the SITE FOR SORE EYES article, which was in the Edmonton Sun. (my
original link appears to no longer be valid).
--
Michael Becker
[[User:MyRedDice/Abacci Letter]]
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:MyRedDice/Abacci_Letter
Abacci did much the same thing, by accident. On the advice of Jimbo I mailed them,
after leaving the letter on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks for folks to edit. Man in
charge (nice man) said "oops" and fixed it. All were happy.
No lawyers were harmed in the making of this email
--Martin "MyRedDice" Harper
I thought it ought to be mentioned that the lack of search capability
is not just annoying to editors, it reading of the encyclopedia for
study virtually impossible, expecially for someone new to the site.
Would it be possible to put the Google search box in as had been done
in the past? I realize that's lame in comparison but it's better than
nothing.
-Hephaestos
do we have a boilerplate asking about what we believe
to be false copyright claims? I ask because a few
weeks ago I visited the site of a university hosting
pictures from the late 1800s and claiming copyright on
them.
As far as I know, simply scanning an image in does
*not* constitute creative input, and does not make the
photo a derivative work eligible for copyright. I'd
like to go about asking several sites to clarify their
copyright claims, but when I first see something I
strongly suspect to be false and/or greedy, I turn
green and say things like "arrrrgh! smash!"
How should be go about phrasing the question, or has
it been done already?
Thanks,
kq
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
You know, I've been contemplating whether it's really in my best interests to send
this email... ;-) Still, here goes:
I'm mildly amused that Eloquence has been criticised for adding a single sentence to
a single policy page... Let's see: policy pages I've made major changes to over the
last month or so: [[wikipedia:deletion policy]], [[wikipedia:protected page]],
[[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers]], [[Wikipedia:Replies to common objections]],
[[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense]] - oh, and minor changes around the place. I've
generally been bold, and my copious screw-ups have been quickly caught and fixed.
So the process seems to work.
One of the things I disliked about h2g2 was that it could take months to fix
documentation bugs (that's not figurative: actual months. In one instance, it's been a
year since the problem was first reported, and it's still not fixed). On Wikipedia, it's a
matter of minutes, nay seconds. That's great - let's not lose that.
-Martin "MyRedDice" Harper.
Oliver, could you please forward the e-mail to the list (or at least me)? Also, I have no problem doing a little bit of research, and writting him myself if he fails to respond in a positive manner to your request. Just let me(us) know of the progress.
--
Michael Becker
a.k.a. Mbecker
a.k.a. MB
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Oliver Pereira <omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Reply-To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2003 17:57:37 +0100 (BST)
>I've just e-mailed Dr. McNeil (using the contact address given on the
>homepage), actually. But I wasn't *entirely* sure about what he had to do
>to comply with the GFDL, so I might have sounded a bit incoherent. So,
>just the one confusing e-mail, then. ;) It would probably be best if
>someone more articulate and knowledgeable about the law e-mailed him as
>well...
>
>Oliver
>
>+-------------------------------------------+
>| Oliver Pereira |
>| Dept. of Electronics and Computer Science |
>| University of Southampton |
>| omp199(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk |
>+-------------------------------------------+
>
>_______________________________________________
>WikiEN-l mailing list
>WikiEN-l(a)wikipedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
Erik wrote:
>In my opinion, Wikipedia should be the
>unstable version of Nupedia, a bit like
>Debian has a permanent unstable section.
>Things in Wikipedia can be complete
>nonsense, but they are always up to date.
I agree completely except for the name of the "stable" Wikipedia distribution;
that, IMO, should be the slightly different "GNUpedia." Of course the GNU
people esp RMS would have to sign off on our use of the "GNU" brand. If they
do not feel comfortable with that then we can use Nupedia. My reasoning is
simple; Nupedia is/was a very different project and we should have a
different name if possible (and Wikimedia already owns both gnupedia.org and
gnupedia.com).
I also like the "gnu" because it emphasizes the open content nature of such a
project (since that would be the most prominent difference between it and any
other static encyclopedia; the most prominent feature of Wikipedia, however,
is that it is a wiki).
>We may add a team certification model to
>Wikipedia eventually, but I'd be happy to see
>a simple Sifter solution as envisioned by Magnus
>(without the limit to certified experts as reviewers
>which I think is what Larry wanted). IMHO it would
>make perfect sense to use the Nupedia name and
>domain for that project.
Like I've said before; Sifter, team certification and a "stable" distribution
of Wikipedia are all basically the same thing in that they are trying to
accomplish similar goals. To be viable we should make one project that
encompasses the best aspects of all three ideas.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)